Is there a place for religion in modern politics?



toughbutfair

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
9,861
If true it does not qualify a need for it.
I disagree. If you have a large number of groups, many in isolation, and every one forms a belief in the afterlife, then I think such a belief is nature .

For practically all of history an adult would have suffered the pain of seeing half their children die in their arms. Such heartbreak , when endemic in a society , requieres a coping mechanism.
 

Supra

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
2,167
I disagree. If you have a large number of groups, many in isolation, and every one forms a belief in the afterlife, then I think such a belief is nature .

For practically all of history an adult would have suffered the pain of seeing half their children die in their arms. Such heartbreak , when endemic in a society , requieres a coping mechanism.
Good point.

I think in Western Catholicism religion is more about the living. How to live your life.
Maybe it's a placebo effect. IF you believe God can help you it becomes real so you continue to believe.
I think in my short time here I can see the difference. I learned as a child about God in heaven and prayed to God in heaven but nowadays it's more praying to God who is with me for immediate results rather than for acceptance into heaven.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
39,553
In what regard? Are their laws directed at catholicism or islamists?
In the sense that you don't appear to have thé first grasp of how it works in pratice.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,072
No - their morality is undoubtedly informed by the religious influence of family and community, even if some of them are now atheists. In fact, that is why we cannot be sure that morality would survive the demise of religion, it has never been tested. It would require at least a few generations of the complete absence of religion, and even then, could we be sure that the residual secular morality did not owe something to the religious influences under which the society developed?
There are secular moralities/rules/guidelines based on cause and effect. religion did a reasonable of packaging human's foibles/instincts and turning them into possible taboos depending. looking forward a smaller % of people will live their lives by religious ethics so there will not be a "consensus" again. However I have seen quite conservative type ideas put forward based on wanting to raise quality kids or qualities you want in partners etc. so I dont see social morality collapsing
 

SideysGhost

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
17,364
Every civilisation that has ever existed have believed in an afterlife.
Except that simply isn't true, even in our lifetimes. Alright some of them like Khmer Rouge Cambodia aren't the greatest examples but the religious like to wave that around while completely ignoring any other examples. The entire Soviet Union was an atheist society that suppressed religion...yeah sure not the most wonderful civilisation ever but it functioned and reached the heights of technology in the arms and space race against the US without collapsing into total anarchy as you religious would have us believe. Likewise the People's Republic Of China, look at the massive strides that atheist society has made in the last 50 years, from being dirt poor to challenging for superpower status. Again you might not like the society or want to live there, but it clearly functions pretty well and yer average Chinese peasant is waaaaay better off today than his father and grandfather were. As previously mentioned, no Buddhist country "believes in an afterlife" in the terms you would mean by that word. Rapidly-developing Vietnam is officially atheist. Japan and Hong Kong are also majority non-religious societies. The Czech Republic and Estonia are European atheistic societies where only a tiny minority claim belief in standard organised religions; Sweden and the UK are pretty much largely irreligious societies now where loudly professing Belief will earn you at the least some funny looks.

The claim that only religion can provide a sense morality is false. The claim that only religious morality can inform and guide the development of societal law and order is false. The claim that only religious-based societies can function without collapsing into anarchy is false. The claim that all civilisations throughout history have been religious-based is false; as is the claim that no non-religious civilisations exist today.

False, false, false.

Just like your bonkers holy scrolls.
 

toughbutfair

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
9,861
Except that simply isn't true, even in our lifetimes. Alright some of them like Khmer Rouge Cambodia aren't the greatest examples but the religious like to wave that around while completely ignoring any other examples. The entire Soviet Union was an atheist society that suppressed religion...yeah sure not the most wonderful civilisation ever but it functioned and reached the heights of technology in the arms and space race against the US without collapsing into total anarchy as you religious would have us believe. Likewise the People's Republic Of China, look at the massive strides that atheist society has made in the last 50 years, from being dirt poor to challenging for superpower status. Again you might not like the society or want to live there, but it clearly functions pretty well and yer average Chinese peasant is waaaaay better off today than his father and grandfather were. As previously mentioned, no Buddhist country "believes in an afterlife" in the terms you would mean by that word. Rapidly-developing Vietnam is officially atheist. Japan and Hong Kong are also majority non-religious societies. The Czech Republic and Estonia are European atheistic societies where only a tiny minority claim belief in standard organised religions; Sweden and the UK are pretty much largely irreligious societies now where loudly professing Belief will earn you at the least some funny looks.

The claim that only religion can provide a sense morality is false. The claim that only religious morality can inform and guide the development of societal law and order is false. The claim that only religious-based societies can function without collapsing into anarchy is false. The claim that all civilisations throughout history have been religious-based is false; as is the claim that no non-religious civilisations exist today. Chinese culture is definitely not scientific, the Chinese people I know actually believe these things.

False, false, false.

Just like your bonkers holy scrolls.
I'm atheist. The Soviet Union was atheist but the people were not. Religion was practiced privately and the government turned a blind eye. As for the Chinese, they recognise 5 religions and I speak mandarin (well to an intermediate level ) and there's lots of religion in their culture, the most obvious example is that the words for the days are the words for "week" followed by the numbers one to six but Sunday is called "week sky/heaven " ( like many languages for example the Spanish word " cielo " the word for sky and heaven is the same .It is hard to explain in English. Also feng shui , is all about "death " and "luck " being entities . Colours evoke powers , the year you are born determines your characteristics , the number 4 is unlucky as "si" is the same sound as their word for death (albeit with a different tone , tone 4 as opposed to tone 3)
 
Last edited:

toughbutfair

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
9,861
No. People already realised things like murder were wrong and had laws against them long before Christianity.
Christians like to think the "golden rule " of "do onto others as you would like them to do onto you" is Catholic , however Confucius said it about 600 years before Jesus was born (according to Christian beliefs) .

The commandments are group survival rules.
 

rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
22,621
Can you cite a single modern society where a satisfactory standard of morality prevailed in the absence of any religious influence?
Can you show me a single moral act performed by a person of faith, that could not or has not been also performed by a person of no faith whatsoever?
 

Polly Ticks

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
3,268
Abraham is possibly the worst role model in history; the original cap-tipping yes man and ur-dupe.

Is ethics in politics possible without the Abrahamic tradition?

Pffft... is ethics possible WITHIN the Abrahamic tradition?
 

SideysGhost

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
17,364
Now we all know the universe is a terrifyingly immense and bewilderingly complicated place; and life can be both randomly capricious and heartbreakingly cruel for no fncking good reason. This was infinitely worse for the ancients who had no clue where on earth droughts, sudden plagues, earthquakes or solar eclipses came from. And so some people find some comfort in using some religion as a framework to try and make some sort of sense of it all or to get through the hard times. And that's fine, we all have tools and constructs we use to get through the day, I'm a smoker so my ritual 3 smokos on every 9 hour shift are the crutch I use to help me not haul off on my co-workers with a crowbar. Ya know, whatever works for you ;)

Just don't try and pretend you have some sort of access to Higher Truth and that this therefore demands that you have special privileges to dictate the laws of the land and everyone else's behaviour, according to the peculiar set of hangups and taboos the witchdoctor in your local temple prescribes.
 

former wesleyan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
25,544
Christians like to think the "golden rule " of "do onto others as you would like them to do onto you" is Catholic
, however Confucius said it about 600 years before Jesus was born (according to Christian beliefs) .

The commandments are group survival rules.
Yeah , well. The Decalogue preceded both Christ and Confuscius. I'll ignore the Christian equals Catholic thingummajig as I don't care.
 

SideysGhost

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
17,364
Yeah , well. The Decalogue preceded both Christ and Confuscius. I'll ignore the Christian equals Catholic thingummajig as I don't care.
And yet the Decalogue/Torah are much, much younger than other rather similar codes of laws that evolved in the region like the codes of Ur-Nammu, Hammurabi, and the Hittite Empire which are all centuries older than the Ten Commandments. All the middle-eastern legal codes of the first millennium BC share characteristics and most likely all influenced one another. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_legal_codes

Interestingly the Ur-Nammu and Hittite codes have characteristics in common with the ancient Irish brehon laws having a strong component of monetary redress for wrongs; whereas the code of Hammurabi was much more "eye for an eye" and based on physical punishment.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
26,920
Twitter
No
I don't think religion should be used as a justification for people acting in politics in society.

If religion were confined to the private sphere (ie anyone can be motivated by whatever moves them and in fairness this is usually the case) then politics- which in fact is just administration of a nation or society doesn't actually require religion in order to function.

It is quite revealing that some people who would profess an interest in civil affairs and therefore politics cannot seem to process the idea that society can and does exist perfectly well without religion.

As others have referenced ancient Greek society encompassed many religions and none (the Epicureans for example) and the Roman Empire itself at its height went through periods where there were literally thousands of religions within the empire and functioned perfectly well with a senate, a republic and even on occasion periods where it was assumed Emperors joined the pantheon of gods when they died.

For someone in the 21st century who would regard themselves as an educated adult to be flummoxed by the question of whether society can be administered via politics without overt religion involved- and in Ireland's case we are a society where it wasn't so long ago that we had many gods and one of the oldest judicial systems known in Europe simultaneously- is something of a shame and more so should be an embarrassment to the person asking the question.

The formerly predominant religious cult in Ireland was catholicism which is an offshoot of xtianity which in itself grew out of a disagreement over the status of a judaic prophet.

You will get people in Ireland who assume Ireland couldn't have a society or politics without the active believers in that particular cult. They are wrong in educational terms, wrong in historical terms in the knowledge of their people and society and their claim to be educated is at the very least quite shakey.
 

PeacefulViking

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
2,469
A TD going to Mass in a private capacity is obviously not a problem.
Why obviously? Could a TD attend a meeting of the Socialist Labour Unions of Ireland in a private capacity, or the Neoliberal Capitalist Association? Of course they could attend, but voters would probably judge them for it, and assumes it says something about their politics.

The RCC is as much a political organisation as a religious one, or rather, as part of its religious beliefs there are many political opinions.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
26,920
Twitter
No
There is something appallingly anti-human in the notion that a collection of politicians in a debating chamber have to turn to a religious symbol on a wall and mumble an agreed prayer in the hope that the acts they are about to legitimise in civil affairs require a rubberstamp from a certain god.

This is going to look very weird in a hundred years time. And the obvious question will be 'Did they not have a lot of confidence in their decisions?'
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
The question I am posing is if religion has any place in a modern society when it comes to politics?
In my opinion, no, but neither should anti religious opinions be allowed to form political policy either, as so many of our political loons here for example, would have it.
 

Super Caley

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2014
Messages
876
No. Religion does not hold a monopoly on morality. The state ought to owe its authority from its citizens and its citizens alone.
Can't wait to see Lumpy's take on this thread, or the usual assertions by the swivel-eyed bogmonkey reactionary conservatives that ethics require religion; one particular religion is the One True source of law, order and morality, without that One True Religion all would be anarchy; and that only societies explicitly based on the teachings of that One True Religion can properly be considered "civilsed", all other societies being naturally and by definition inferior.

And then people wonder why I'm so hard on the dribbling religious cretins on p.ie. Cos their views are not just completely Wrong, but when you peek under the hood actually profoundly offensive and repulsive.

OK, but where does morality come from then?

The secular rationalist seem to think that it is inate / obvious / can be arrived at through reason, but that fallacy was nailed by David Hume's (ought - is problem) back in the 18th century. (Hume probably meant it as a dig at theists back then, but is equallt a problem for ethical atheists).

Obviously no one specific religion, and certainly no one specific religious institution has a monopoly on morality. However deeming that whatever more than 50% of the people say is right, is by definition right, is just as irrational. There is for instance no conceptual limits to what may be put into Bunreacht na hEireann, so saying that your supreme value is, and always will be, whatever the electorate put into it, is a hostage to fortune.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top